A good bit of the historical revisionism concerning the Civil War revolves around the question of whether the Southern states really did, in fact, have the right to secede. The question was answered in the usual way by their crushing defeat at the hands of the North – but like most questions that are “answered” by brute force and nothing more, it has arisen again, and now it's even (for the first time) making headlines in the case of Texas, and Governor Rick Perry's recent statement that he sympathizes with Texans who might want to secede, given the federal government's burgeoning habit of grand theft on behalf of itself and its cronies on Wall Street. Of course, to “sympathize” is neither to advocate or condone, but that doesn't satisfy the hair-trigger, paranoid, hypersensitive statists of the media who consider that anyone who even breathes a word about secession – or federalism, for that matter – has, for all intents and purposes, bombarded Fort Sumter all over again and deserves to be treated accordingly. Thus, the “tolerance of opposing views” which liberals pretend to advocate is shown, once again, to be a total sham. Liberals are reacting to Perry's statements the way Kim Jong-Il would react to anyone who wanted to escape from the People's Paradise.
Now, the secession question might not be solvable merely by the application of legal experts, historians, and Constitutional scholars, but it certainly couldn't hurt to take a cool-headed, detached look at the issue. But what are the chances this will ever occur? What are the chances, moreover, that any department of the federal government will be interested enough in the issue to support a study? If the federal bureaucracy is unable to get to the bottom of global warming, are they going to do any better with secession? I think not. And yet, it is curious how, after all this time, this country is still referred to as “the United States” and not just as “America”, or “Columbia”, or “Obamia”, or some other monolithic appellation. But apparently – once again, as “proven” by the Civil War -- the original “uniting” process was a one-way street and cannot be undone, even in the case of Texas, which – according to the common impression – never really did fully adjust to being part of anything else. The Republic of Texas was an interesting place. Texas as just another state – with no more senators than Arkansas, say, or Delaware – is a bit like Gulliver being tied down by the Lilliputians. One gets the impression that most native Texans (as opposed to the rootless cosmopolites who flood into Dallas and Houston to get high-paying high-tech jobs, and think that Applebee's steak is the real thing) would really prefer to live in a country where just about any argument can be settled quickly and with finality by means of six-shooters... where Mexicans are at once indispensable (for music, cuisine, and stoop labor) and a lower life form... where the only true measure of a man's worth and merit is the fatness of his wallet and the number of oil wells he owns... where one thinks nothing of driving 100 miles to see a movie, provided the drive can be made in an air-conditioned gleaming white-with-gold-trim custom Cadillac equipped with HDTV. Texas could have been an interesting, simple (albeit atavistic), but very rich, country like Kuwait. Instead they have to send representatives to Washington, DC to sit in Congress with a bunch of sissies, eggheads, parasites, and degenerates – some of whom have never been on a horse in their life, if you can believe that! Texas – where men are men and proud of it, and women never gave up the frilly prom dress and the beehive hairdo... where they don't “do” gay, or lesbian, or “bi”, or transgendered, or anything else of that sort... where “old money” is anything your daddy earned wildcatting before World War II... where size not only matters, it's the only thing that does – why should a place this noble, with this level of self-confidence, be forced to repeatedly cast its lot with a bunch of apologetic, “metrosexual” wimps? Who wouldn't want to secede? And in fact, I would think the rest of the country would find the idea appealing – especially the liberals, who are squealing like stuck pigs at the very mention of the idea. Think of the great weight that would be lifted from the political scale if Texas should be wiped off the U.S. map... think of the number of illegal immigrants who would no longer be illegal (or immigrants). Of course, we would have many fewer Miss America wannabes, debutante ball attendees, kiddie beauty contest freaks, and trailer park residents to make fun of... and the guys who did “Greater Tuna” would have to come up with a different story line. And about half the country-western singers would become foreigners overnight. But on the other hand, we could quit worrying about the Waco massacre because it would be some other country's problem; in fact, we could extradite Janet Reno to Texas to stand trial for mass murder – now that would be a load off everyone's back! We could also declare that LBJ had never actually been president of the United States (thus removing the last barrier to finally trying Robert McNamara for treason). And the Texas authorities could go back and finish the job they started with those oddball FLDS folks, without worrying about interference from some Commission on Civil Rights, or the ACLU. And in that regard, I suppose that a newly-independent Texas would immediately pass a law requiring everyone to be a member of an Evangelical church. This would, of course, mean that Texas would immediately become an even closer ally of Israel than the United States now is... and that Texas would, without a doubt, take over some of the heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wouldn't that be a good thing? They would probably also take the wind out of Sarah Palin's sails by attacking Russia in order to help Georgia regain its lost territories... and attacking any Arab/Islamic nation that supports the Palestinians... and attacking Vietnam just on general principles. But if this happened, would the U.S. rush to the aid of Texas? Hopefully not; don't we at least need to have a treaty in place in order to do this? I mean a treaty other than a peace treaty; all the latter would do is guarantee that the U.S. wouldn't send General Petraeus down there to burn a 100-mile-wide path all the way from El Paso to Galveston.
Plus, frankly, wouldn't getting Texas off our plate sort of raise the overall tone of the rest of the country? I have always considered Texas to be a uniquely barbaric place, and have long held a morbid fascination for its arcane rituals and customs. But stupid me, I went and married a Texan, and that means that my kids are all half Texan... and, even worse, two of them live there. But that's no problem, in fact it might be a good thing to have a bit of foreign “cachet” in the family. Like, we could change our family name to something classy sounding by adding "von" and “und Texas”. We could start exchanging our U.S. dollars for Texas currency (fully backed by oil, of course) instead of fooling with those nasty old Swiss francs... we could invest in Texas banks and real estate, which are still operating in the black... invest in the newly-formed Texas Stock Market. Why, the possibilities are endless! We could even set up “sister city” programs between Texas and the “old 49”. (Oh, right – we'll need a new flag. Texas can just keep the one they already have.)
Really, this sounds like a win-win situation for everyone involved. So what are we waiting for?